I was in the Robina Store today, after there was the report showing the specs. Couple of people were talking to the staff about buying a Pro. Seriously tempted to interrupt and tell them that they were making a HUGE mistake. But I didn't.
There's gonna be one unhappy family with an outdated MBP tomorrow...

I don't see them listed, but I hope the White Macbook and Macbook Air get updates as well. I'd like to see the White macbook get an SD slot and the Macbook Air to get an SD slot as well, 4GB ram and a new trackpad(it still has the old separate click button style).

Other than that, I'm psyched to see the new line up.

But THREE different types of Glossy Screens? Glossy. Glossy Hi-Res and Glossy Anti Glare? Is this a way to gouge people out of more money? Why not just make them ALL hi res and anti glare? And if they HAVE to be separate, why not just lump the Hi-Res and Anti-Glare together? I dunno how i feel about this. I wish it was just a choice of Glossy and non Glossy. Isn't that what most people complained about, that they missed the non glossy displays? Why give people THREE types of glossy choices, and NO non glossy? LOL.

Not that I can afford one right now, but I'm always interested in laptops. That high resolution screen has me wodering about how it became non reflective. I'm think it is still a glass panel but with an anti reflective coating on the glass. Done right this should keep image quality up without the reflections.

No, the entire architecture changed. Clock speed hasn't been really relevant since the Pentium III. The core iX chips are much more efficient -- per clock -- than the C2Ds. However, as I posted earlier; those GPUs blow. I was holding my breath and money for this upgrade, but with such an underpowered GPU, I wonder if it's worth it. (*It's a fine GPU for most things, but I do GPU programming (CUDA/OpenCL) for my research as a grad student, and these GPUs are just weak with respect to Nvidia's latest and greatest).

So...I've got a 2.2 ghz Core 2 Duo 15" Macbook Pro that's about to come off AppleCare in June. I want to replace it with a 13"er, but...

Will I realistically see much performance increase between the new 13" macbook pro at 2.4 ghz and the 2007 Core 2 Duo @ 2.2 ghz? The better battery, increased RAM capacity, build quality and portability are nice, but how do the computery guts compare? I do a lot of architecture/engineering stuff (AutoCAD and ArcGIS in Parallels, Sketchup, Photoshop, etc) so I need a machine with decent cajones (though 3D performance is less important). I dunno if it makes sense to wait much longer given the increased resale value of the old machine with AppleCare.

I do _not_ want another 15" laptop, though. Too big for someone who commutes on foot every day.

No, the entire architecture changed. Clock speed hasn't been really relevant since the Pentium III. The core iX chips are much more efficient -- per clock -- than the C2Ds. However, as I posted earlier; those GPUs blow. I was holding my breath and money for this upgrade, but with such an underpowered GPU, I wonder if it's worth it. (*It's a fine GPU for most things, but I do GPU programming (CUDA/OpenCL) for my research as a grad student, and these GPUs are just weak with respect to Nvidia's latest and greatest).

well, according to Apples test, my MBP 17" 2.8 dual core is only slightly slower than the latest and greatest..... and i am willing to bet, in real life, they are identical.